Islam: The Jinn is out of the bottle

American Thinker, By John Griffing, Feb. 13, 2016:

Europe is on fire, in a social and financial crisis of its leaders’ own making. Its public places are now spectacles of the obscene, and its women are sexual objects for a predatory race of invaders. Its social systems are stretched to the breaking point by belligerent “refugees” who are devouring their host countries at will, while Europe’s leaders defend the invaders and blame their own citizens.

Western civilization is under attack, and rational citizens are at a loss to understand why their leaders are allowing the destruction of their societies.

Much has been written about the outrageous acts that have been committed by Muslim migrants, so we need not repeat them here. We can simply agree that the situation in Europe is disastrous, and it’s getting worse. And America is not far behind.

Western leaders are aiding and abetting this insanity with a consistency and single-mindedness of purpose that can only be explained in one way: they must think they have something to gain from the chaos created by this crisis.

What other conclusion can be drawn from the brazen ascendancy of Islam in the western world, and the deafening silence that permits its success?  Clearly, Western leaders think they can use Islam for their own ends, to consolidate their own power.

Whether their motivations are globalist, nationalist, pro-Islam, or merely megalomaniacal, they all seem to hold one belief in common: the belief that they can control Muslim migration to create the chaos necessary to justify their predetermined solutions.

These European — and American — leaders think they can control what is pouring out of the Pandora’s box they’ve thrown open; they think they can put the Jinn back in the bottle at their whim.

Illustration of Jinn via AlArabiya.net

But they are dangerously underestimating those they presume to use as pawns.

In the First Century, “the Moors” — Muslims of antiquity — invaded and nearly conquered the entire European continent (Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, etc.)  It was only the strength of Christianity and the unity this inspired, which turned back the scourge of Islamic imperialism in Europe.

The world of today is very similar, but with one key difference.  Europe, and less so America, now exist in a moral and religious vacuum.  There is no concrete ideology or religious paradigm posing a credible challenge to the radical adherents of Islam.

Islam is now controlling most of Europe, either actively, or passively, due to the absence of any response from local governing authorities — a curious void of law and order.  “Peace in our time” has now given way to the “Religion of Peace.”

Unless Europeans and Americans rise up now to reverse this trend, one of two things will occur. Either those in power will succeed in using this crisis to advance their aims and fundamentally transform their societies, or, more likely, Islam will become dominant in the West past the point of no return.

“The Moors” have come home.  The Muslim hoard hastily imported into Europe over the cries and screams of voters are living up to the archetypes people in the West have come to fear, especially when cartoons result in lynch-mobs, and when a woman clothed according to western custom is mercilessly raped by “migrants.”

Some would say that the murderous attacks perpetrated by Islamic radicals should be considered an aberration and unrelated to the religion of Islam. Very well; then consider:

The head of the “moderate” Muslim group CAIR Omar Ahmad (which was investigated by Congress and then ignored by Congress), wants to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an, saying, “The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Sirraj Wihhaj, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings and the original person selected by President Obama to give the prayer before the 2012 DNC, also believes the Constitution should be replaced:  “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”

A majority of Muslims living in Britain say they want full Sharia law, a separate Muslim police force, and death for anyone who speaks against Mohammed.  The same survey revealed a majority percentage also favor terrorist attacks against Britain and the United States.  51 percent of American Muslims also say they want Shariah and the US government to become Islamic.

The Netherlands openly advocates placing Shariah — the desert law which commands death for adulterers, death for gambling, death for leaving the faith (or having no faith), and death for homosexuals — on the ballot.

German courts are already enforcing Shariah when requested, and the impetus for this golden nugget originated in Nuremburg.

France has over 751 “no-go zones,” i.e. areas of land ruled by Islamic law and totally unrecognizable as French.  This was verified again after the recent French attacks.

The British already have actual Shariah courts in operation all over the United Kingdom.  These “courts” are chaired by a man who thinks amputation for petty crimes is a great idea, something he wants to “offer British society.”

Americans and Europeans need to stop acting surprised when Muslims behave like Muslims.  They are acting according to what the Qur’an says to do. It’s there in plain sight for anyone to read. And its ultimate aim is conquest and complete domination of any other culture but Islam.

Winston Churchill referred to it as a “militant and proselytizing faith.”

Like the Moors, history is repeating. And not only is history repeating, but it is repeating on a crash timetable, and with the perverse backing of the host countries destined to be remade in the image of Islamic hegemony.  Why would any true German, Frenchman or Briton cooperate in their own organized destruction if there were not some goal or elusive purpose to be accomplished by the ever less accountable and more distant governments that make such decisions?

It would only be logical to deduce that French leaders, German leaders and British leaders have determined that there is an acceptable cost to property and lives if the chaos resulting from the indiscriminate welcoming of new migrant hoards can be directed towards an unspoken goal.  This is not out of left field.  Angela Merkel calling her own people “neo-Nazis” and turning water cannons on her own citizens is indicative.

Amazingly, this mindset is evident in every recent action to open the borders of Europe and America to their new visitors. Controlled chaos is the desired result. We underestimate the depravity of Western leaders if we think the lives of American and European citizens mean anything more to them than plot points in a narrative, one leading inevitably to the end of national sovereignty.

The old expression, “the genie is out of the bottle,” comes from Arabic folklore, surrounding the devilish character known as the “Jinn” who grants wishes in exchange for the soul of the seeker.

Western leaders have let the “Jinn” out of the bottle, and like Pandora’s box, the resulting chaos will not be contained.

Underestimating Nuclear Missile Threats from North Korea and Iran

Korea

Naïve reliance on their transparent disavowals could end up costing millions of American lives.

National Review, By R. James Woolsey, William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth & Peter Vincent Pry — February 12, 2016

North Korea launched its second satellite on Saturday, yet the national press continues to ignore this existential threat. The White House has not recognized that a nuclear-armed North Korea has demonstrated an ability to kill most Americans with an electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack. And White House spokesmen and the media have misled the public with unjustified assurances that North Korea has not yet miniaturized nuclear warheads for missile or satellite delivery.

We, who have spent our professional lifetimes analyzing and defending against nuclear-missile threats, warned years ago that North Korea’s Unha-3 space launch vehicle could carry a small nuclear warhead and detonate it a hundred or so miles over the United States to create an EMP, leading to a protracted nationwide blackout. The resulting societal chaos could kill millions.

Indeed, the trajectory and altitude of North Korea’s last satellite orbited three years ago, the KSM-3, could have evaded detection by U.S. missile-tracking radars in its initial orbit and evaded interception by our National Missile Defense, exposing the 48 contiguous United States to an existential EMP attack.

Last year, Admiral William Gortney, commander of North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD), acknowledged the nuclear-missile threat from North Korea:

On April 7, 2015, he warned that North Korea has mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) called KN-08, armed with nuclear warheads, that can strike the U.S. mainland.  He revealed that critical assets hardened against EMP are moving back into an underground command post inside Cheyenne Mountain at a cost of $700 million.

On October 8, 2015, he warned the Atlantic Council:

I agree with the intelligence community that we assess that they [the North Koreans] have the ability, they have the weapons, and they have the ability to miniaturize those weapons, and they have the ability to put them on a rocket that can range the [U.S.] homeland.

Iran is also being underestimated as a nuclear-missile threat. The press accepts Obama-administration assertions that its recent nuclear deal will keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons for a decade. The administration and the press both celebrate Iran’s shipping of enriched uranium to Russia and its filling the core of the Arak plutonium reactor with cement. We are supposed to believe that these acts signify Iran’s good faith, and that the nuclear deal is working. We do not.

Apparently forgotten are North Korea’s equally dramatic gestures to deceive President Bill Clinton while cheating on his “nuclear deal” called the Agreed Framework. North Korea stopped its Yongbyon plutonium reactor, allowed the United Nations to install cameras and seals to monitor nuclear activities, and acceded to virtual occupation of Yongbyon by U.N. inspectors. All the while, North Korea’s clandestine underground nuclear-weapons program continued unimpeded — indeed, its nuclear weapons existed before the Agreed Framework was signed.

The Congressional North Korea Advisory Group saw through this deception and warned that the Agreed Framework was not working. But while North Korea developed long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, President Clinton and the press preferred to believe otherwise.

Iran is following North Korea’s example — as a strategic partner allied by treaty and pledged to share scientific and military technology. Iran sacrificed its overt civilian nuclear program to deceive the Obama administration, to lift international sanctions, to prevent Western military action, while a clandestine military nuclear program no doubt continues underground. That is why Iran, under the nuclear deal, will not allow inspection of its military facilities and prohibits interviewing scientists — it is concealing the dimensions and status of Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

We assess, from U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency reports and other sources, that Iran probably already has nuclear weapons. Over 13 years ago, prior to 2003, Iran was manufacturing nuclear-weapon components, like bridge-wire detonators and neutron initiators, performing non-fissile explosive experiments of an implosion nuclear device, and working on the design of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-III missile.

Thirteen years ago Iran was already a threshold nuclear-missile state. It is implausible that Iran suspended its program for over a decade for a nuclear deal with President Obama.

Iran probably has nuclear warheads for the Shahab-III medium-range missile, which they tested for making EMP attacks. Two recent tests violate UN agreements, demonstrating that Iran is brazenly developing its nuclear-capable missiles. Iran already has the largest medium-range ballistic-missile force in the Middle East.

Iran could be building a nuclear-capable missile force, partly hidden in tunnels, as suggested by its dramatic revelation of a vast underground missile-basing system last year. Iran is building toward a large, deployable, survivable, war-fighting missile force — to which nuclear weapons can be swiftly added as they are manufactured.

And at a time of its choosing, Iran could launch a surprise EMP attack against the United States by satellite, as they have apparently practiced with help from North Korea.

We live in a very dangerous time, and we urge that the Senate immediately pass the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (already passed by the House) to safeguard U.S. life-sustaining critical infrastructures against EMP attack. We also recommend that a Congressional Iran Advisory Group be formed to objectively assess the Iran deal.

— Ambassador R. James Woolsey, former director of central intelligence, is the chancellor of the Institute of World Politics and the chairman of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; William R. Graham was President Reagan’s science adviser, and acting administrator of NASA, and is the chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission; Ambassador Henry Cooper was the director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief negotiator at the Defense and Space Talks with the USSR; Fritz Ermarth was chairman of the National Intelligence Council; Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served in the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.

The UN’s ‘violent extremism’ scam: What to say when ‘radical Islamic terror’ is too scary

FILE -- Sept. 21, 2009: The United Nations headquarters in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

FILE — Sept. 21, 2009: The United Nations headquarters in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

Fox News, by Anne Bayefsky, Feb. 11, 2016:

There is a dangerous scam gaining traction at the United Nations, backstopped by the White House. It’s called “violent extremism.”  Given the U.N.’s long and undistinguished history of being unable to define terrorism, and an American president who chokes on the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” pledges to combat “violent extremism” have become all the rage.

It turns out that the terminological fast one is a lethal diplomatic dance that needs to be deconstructed, and quickly.

In 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) adopted an “anti-terrorism” treaty stating that “armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination…shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”

In practice, that means it is open season on all Israelis, as well as Americans and Europeans who get in the way.  Each of the 56 Islamic states, and what the UN labels the “State of Palestine,” is a party to this treaty.

The September 11 terror attacks then launched a growth industry in U.N. counter-terrorism chit-chat and paraphernalia.

Year-after-year, Islamic states have prevented the adoption of a UN Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism by refusing to abandon their claim that certain targets are exempt.

In 2001 the U.N. Security Council created the Counter-Terrorism Committee. But it is unable to name a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, from 2002 to 2003, Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, was a member.

In 2005 the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, once chaired by Colonel Qaddafi’s Libya, created the U.N. expert on “the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” – as if countering terror is not about protecting human rights.

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  It manages to cast terrorists as victims.  “Pillar Number One” starts by worrying about “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” “Youth unemployment,” for instance, purportedly results in “the subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.”

In 2011 the UN established the Counter-Terrorism Center – at the initiative of Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis threw $100 million at the venture and became chair of the “Advisory Board.”  Saudi financing of radical charities and “academic” exercises around the world are somehow left out of Center events on investigating and prosecuting terror financing.

Integral to the-best-defense-is-a-good-offence routine, has been the constant unsubstantiated allegation of an “Islamophobia” pandemic.

For the first decade of the 21st century, the Islamophobia charge was hurled in UN resolutions on the “defamation” of Islam or the “defamation of religion.” Defamation meant the freedoms of human beings should be trumped by the “rights” of “religion.”

In 2009 “defamation” was repackaged by the General Assembly as “human rights and cultural diversity.”  Ever since, the over 100 countries of the “Non-aligned movement” vote against Western states and demand the freedoms of human beings be trumped by “cultural diversity.” And that’s cultural diversity Iran-style. In December 2015, the UN resolution praised Tehran’s Centre for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity – the brainchild of former Iranian President and well-known human rights aficionado Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the last six weeks alone, Islamic states have staged two UN meetings focusing on “Islamophobia and inclusive societies,” and “countering xenophobia.”  Two weeks ago, the servile Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon couldn’t mention “antisemitism” on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz without connecting it to “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Of course, the Islamophobia drumbeat skips right over the xenophobia, antisemitism, and exclusivity that is endemic – and officially-sanctioned – in Islamic states.

This is the substrate from which Ban Ki-moon has now manufactured a “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.”  Introduced in January, the General Assembly is meeting on February 12, 2016 to push the plan forward.

After one mention of “ISIL, Al-Qaida and Boko Haram,” the Plan insists that violent extremism “does not arise in a vacuum. Narratives of grievance, actual or perceived injustice…become attractive.” “It is critical that in responding to this threat,” stresses the Plan, that states be stopped from “overreacting.”  Topping “conditions conducive to violent extremism” is “lack of socioeconomic opportunities.”

Here we go again. The bigots, fanatics and killers are allegedly driven by our annoying insistence on fighting back – which the Plan astonishingly calls “the cycle of insecurity and armed conflict.”

As per usual in U.N. negotiations, the Obama administration has jumped on board while Islamic states are holding out for greater elaboration of their grievances and even more “nothing to do with religion or Islam” clauses.

The U.N.’s idea of a win-win is an illusory “global partnership to confront this menace” that allows states to define violent extremism any which way they want:  “This Plan of Action pursues a practical approach to preventing violent extremism, without venturing to address questions of definition.”

Only U.N. con-artists could present refusing to identify a problem as the most practical way to solve it.

More practically speaking, the latest Palestinian terror wave began by pumping bullets into a young mom and dad in front of their little kids for the crime of being Jews living and breathing on Arab-claimed land. In U.N. terminology, Eitam and Naama Henkin were “extremist settlers.”

So to all you extremist lovers of liberty: beware the violent extremists in U.N. clothing, and the morally-challenged commanders in chief bringing up the rear.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her on Twitter @AnneBayefsky.

Germany’s Migrant Crisis: January 2016

In January, there were thousands of cases of migrants sexually assaulting women in Germany, including many that took place in public pools. The government began to face a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to "educate" migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

In January, there were thousands of cases of migrants sexually assaulting women in Germany, including many that took place in public pools. The government began to face a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to “educate” migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, February 12, 2016:

  • Despite snow, ice and freezing temperatures across much of Europe, a total of 91,671 migrants entered Germany during January 2016.
  • German taxpayers could end up paying 450 billion euros ($500 billion) for the upkeep of the million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015. This would presumably double to nearly one trillion euros if another million migrants arrive in 2016.
  • A 19-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted four girls between the ages of 11 and 13 at a swimming pool in Dresden. The migrant was arrested but then set free.
  • Three teenage migrants from North Africa tried to stone to death two transsexuals in Dortmund after they were seen walking around in women’s clothing. The victims were saved by police.
  • Bild reported that politicians in Kiel had ordered the police to overlook crimes perpetrated by migrants.
  • “The topics we cover are determined by the government. … We must report in such a way that serves Europe and the common good, as it pleases Mrs. Merkel. … today we are not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism.” – Wolfgang Herles, retired public media personality.
  • The European Commission called for the “rejection of false associations between certain criminal acts, such as the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, and the mass influx of refugees.”

In January 2016, the German public appeared finally to wake up to the implications of their government’s decision to allow 1.1 million — mostly male — migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to enter the country during 2015.

After more than a thousand Muslim migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of women in cities across Germany on New Year’s Eve, Chancellor Angela Merkel began to face a rising voter backlash to her open-door migration policy.

Merkel’s government has responded to the criticism by: 1) attempting to silence critics of the open-door migration policy; 2) trying to “export” the migrant problem to other countries in the European Union; and 3) announcing a series of measures — branded as unrealistic by critics — to deport migrants accused of committing crimes in Germany.

What Merkel has steadfastly refused to do, however, is reduce the number of migrants entering the country. Despite snow, ice and freezing temperatures across much of Europe, a total of 91,671 migrants — an average of around 3,000 migrants each day — entered Germany during the month of January 2016.

The following is a review of some of the more notable stories about the migration crisis in Germany during January 2016.

January 1. More than a thousand migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of German women in the cities of Cologne, Hamburg and Stuttgart. The government and the mainstream media were accused of trying to cover up the crimes, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiment.

January 1. As Muslim migrants were causing mayhem on German streets, the Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, said he could not understand public concerns about the “alleged Islamization” of Germany. In an interview with Die Welt, he said: “If you look at the facts, this fear is unfounded. We have a stable democracy and a free society. State and religion are separated. How should Muslims, who represent a minority, Islamize our society?” When asked why Germans are afraid, Kretschmann replied: “People are afraid of strangers they do not know.”

January 1. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that 1.3 million asylum seekers would enter the European Union annually during 2016 and 2017.

January 2. A fight between children as young as 11 at a refugee shelter in Stockach near Konstanz turned into a mass brawl after parents of the children joined in the fighting. Police were deployed to restore order. Seven people were injured.

January 3. A 16-year-old Moroccan migrant went on a rampage after a judge in Bremen ordered him to be jailed for stealing a man’s laptop at knife-point. On the way from the courthouse to the jail, the Moroccan seriously injured a police officer by kicking him in the face. Once inside the jail cell, the migrant ripped a toilet from the floor and smashed it against a wall.

The chairman of the Bremen Police Union, Jochen Kopelke, said that migrants were attacking city police with increasing frequency: “The tone has become extremely aggressive; sometimes the police must apply massive force to get a situation under control.” According to Bremen Senator Ulrich Mäurer, “the excesses of violence against police officers show that these people have no respect for our constitutional order and its representatives.”

January 3. More than 50 migrants were involved in a mass brawl at a refugee shelter inEllwangen near Stuttgart. Police said migrants attacked each other with fire extinguishers, metal pipes, rocks and stones. According to local media, mass brawls have become commonplace at migrant shelters in the area.

January 3. Hans-Werner Sinn, one of the best-known economists in Germany, cited estimates that German taxpayers could end up paying 450 billion euros ($500 billion) for the upkeep of the million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015. This estimate would presumably double to nearly one trillion euros if another million migrants arrive in Germany in 2016.

January 4. An internal report written by a senior federal police officer revealed chaos “beyond description” in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. The report, which was leaked to the news magazineDer Spiegel and published in full by the newspaper Bild, said that women were forced to “run a gauntlet” of drunken men of a “migrant background” to enter or depart the main train station. “Even the appearance of the police officers and their initial measures did not stop the masses from their actions.” One migrant told a police officer: “I am Syrian; you have to treat me kindly! Mrs. Merkel has invited me.”

January 5. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker said: “There is no reason to believe that those involved in the sexual assaults in Cologne were refugees.” Cologne Police Chief Wolfgang Alberssaid: “At this time we have no information about the offenders.”

January 6. Former Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said it was “scandalous that it took the mainstream media several days” to report on the sexual assaults in Cologne. He said public media was a “cartel of silence” exercising censorship to protect migrants from accusations of wrongdoing.

January 7. A charity called Refugees Welcome Bonn, which organized a Rhine River cruise as welcoming party for migrants in Bonn, apologized after it emerged that migrants groped and sexually harassed some female guests during the event.

January 8. The Interior Ministry revealed that of the 32 suspects identified in the Cologne assaults, 22 were asylum seekers. Cologne Police Chief Wolfgang Albers was fired for withholding information about the assaults from the public.

January 9. A vigilante group began patrolling the streets of Düsseldorf to “make the city safer for our women.” Similar groups emerged in Cologne and Stuttgart.

January 10. Three teenage migrants from North Africa tried to stone to death two transsexuals inDortmund after they were seen walking around in women’s clothing. The victims were saved by police, who happened to pass by in a car. One of the victims said: “I never could have imagined that something like this could happen in Germany.”

January 11. A 35-year-old migrant from Pakistan sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl at a refugee shelter in Kamen.

January 12. In an interview with Bild, Frank Oesterhelweg, a politician with the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), caused a scandal when he said that police should be authorized to use deadly force to prevent migrants from raping German women:

“These criminals deserve no tolerance, they have to be stopped by the police. By force if necessary, and, yes, you read correctly, even with firearms. An armed police officer has a duty to help a desperate woman. One must, if necessary, protect the victims by means of force: With truncheons, water cannons or firearms.”

Police union leader Dietmar Schilff was irate: “These statements are outrageous and do not help the police at all. There are clear rules for using the service weapon. What would have happened in Cologne if the police had used clubs and guns?” According to Bild, many German police officers are afraid of using lethal force “because of the legal consequences.”

January 12. A YouGov poll showed that 62% of Germans believe the number of asylum seekers is too high, up from 53% in November. According to the poll, the growing resistance to immigration was being driven by the hardening of attitudes by German women.

January 13. An Interior Ministry report leaked to Bild warned that jihadist attacks like those in Paris could take place in Germany “at any time.” The report said that attacks would likely be spread over several days and against “various target categories.”

January 13. A 20-year-old migrant from Somalia was sentenced to four years in prison for raping an 88-year-old woman in Herford. His defense attorneys argued for leniency because, according to them, the man was traumatized by his flight from Somalia. In Gelsenkirchen, four migrants attacked a 45-year-old man after he tried to prevent them from raping a 13-year-old girl.

January 14. The Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, approved a plan to provide all refugees with identity cards that will contain information such as fingerprints and country of origin. The cards will be linked to a centralized refugee data system. The plan may be too late: the German government has lost track of the whereabouts of hundreds of thousands of migrants who entered the country in 2015.

January 14. Prosecutors in Cologne said they were offering a reward of 10,000 euros ($11,000) for information leading to the arrest or identification of those who committed the sexual assaults and robberies on New Year’s Eve.

January 14. A Bavarian politician sent a bus carrying 31 refugees on a seven-hour journey to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin to protest her open-door refugee policy. Merkel sentthe migrants back to Bavaria.

January 14. City officials in Rheinberg cancelled this year’s carnival celebrations. Local police said that in wake of the sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, they were unable to guarantee the safety of female revelers.

January 15. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl at a public park in Hilden near Solingen. A 31-year-old migrant from Tunisia was arrested for attempting to rape a 30-year-old woman in Chemnitz. A 31-year-old migrant from Morocco appeared in court for raping a 31-year-old woman in Dresden. A migrant sexually assaulted a 42-year-old woman inMainz. A migrant sexually assaulted a 32-year-old woman in Münchfeld. An African migrantsexually assaulted a 55-year-old woman in Mannheim.

January 15. Male migrants were banned from a public swimming pool in Bornheim, near Bonn, after they were accused of assaulting female patrons at the facility.

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

Hillary Clinton Destroys Computer in New Cruz ‘Office Space’ Ad

Damn-Good-to-Be-a-Clinton-Ad.sized-770x415xt

PJ MEDIA, BY TYLER O’NEIL, FEBRUARY 12, 2016

The newest ad put out by Texas Senator Ted Cruz takes a page out of the movie Office Space to slam the secrecy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It melds together two iconic parts of the 1990s business comedy — the song “Damn it feels good to be a gangsta,” and the scene where three main characters destroy a printer with a baseball bat and their bare hands.

In the iconic film, these are moments of catharsis, where an office-bound nine-to-five worker decides to challenge the system. In the Ted Cruz ad, this is a moment of corruption, where an established politician deliberately breaks the rules to perpetuate her hold on power.

The entire ad, released by MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Twitter Friday, consists of one scene, where a woman playing Hillary Clinton teams up with two suited men to destroy a desktop computer. Rap lyrics about Clinton’s shady misuse of government power play in the background, as Clinton — in her famous pantsuit — and her goons go to town on the tech.

Damn it feels good to be a Clinton/A shameless politician always plays her cards right/got a crew for the fight on the airwaves/lapdogs in the press keep their mouths tight.

The ad insinuates that while Clinton hides her shady deals, the press keeps mum to protect her from the American people. It also insinuates that the former secretary of State used a private email server in order to hide information from the American people — not as “a matter of convenience” as she claims. The ad makes these subtle policy attacks in hilarious rap lyrics:

‘Cuz a Clinton never needs to explain what, why it is what they done or with who. A real Clinton knows that they’re entitled, and you don’t get to know what they do.

Using dubstep, the song draws out Clinton’s famous question, “What difference does it make?”

“Wha-what difference does it make?” for a Clinton, what’s loaded in some fat Apple file. A Clinton plays the victim for promotion, a Clinton kills it off with a smile.

This is merely the latest in a list of strong Cruz ads combining popular culture and political issues.

Recently, the Cruz campaign released an ad featuring the “Donald Trump action figure,” which “pretends to be a Republican” and destroys widows’ houses with eminent domain. That ad also features destruction — as little boys go to town on a toy house. Such hilarious, yet on-point, ads led the managing editor of the Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti, to call for a raise for Cruz’s media director. As a conservative who loves to laugh, I could not agree more.

Huma Abedin and the Tangled Clinton Web

t-huma-abedin-anthony-weiner.sized-940x350xcPJ Media, by Andrew McCarthy, Feb. 12 2016:

Almost a month ago, Fox News reported that the FBI’s investigation of possible national security violations stemming from Hillary Clinton’s private email system had expanded to include a corruption angle, centered on the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the possibility that Foundation donors received favorable government treatment during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

The Fox report prompted indignant denials from Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign that there had been any broadening of the probe. Yet, the government is not required to disclose the course of its investigation publicly, much less to its subjects. And now, there are additional indications that the government is indeed scrutinizing the cozy relations the State Department enjoyed during Secretary Hillary Clinton’s tenure with both the Clinton Foundation and a Clinton-connected consulting firm called Teneo.

Last autumn, according to the Washington Post, the State Department’s inspector general (IG) issued subpoenas to the Clinton Foundation. The IG’s office has authority to investigate wrongdoing at the Department, including criminal wrongdoing. Its conclusions may be referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, and may also result in other forms of disciplinary action against government officials found to have committed misconduct. The subpoenas served on the Clinton Foundation reportedly focused on two areas of inquiry: (a) Clinton Foundation projects that may have required federal government approval during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state; and (b) Clinton Foundation records pertaining to the employment of Huma Abedin.

Ms. Abedin, a longtime Clinton confidante, served as Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief-of-staff at the State Department and is now vice chairwoman of Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign for the presidency.

For about a half-year toward the end of Abedin’s tenure at the State Department, which coincided with with Secretary Clinton’s own departure from the State Department in February 2013, Abedin was given a highly unusual and ethically dubious arrangement: She was permitted to work simultaneously for the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation, and even in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton – in order to manage the secretary’s transition back to the private sector (notwithstanding that Mrs. Clinton had a job waiting for her at the lavishly funded Clinton Foundation, from which she would oversee her 2016 campaign-in-waiting).

Ordered Liberty readers will recall that Ms. Abedin has been the subject of controversy. Several years ago, five House conservatives asked State’s IG to investigate how Abedin managed to receive a security clearance despite extensive family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to an al Qaeda financier whose “charity” was designated a terrorist organization by the government. At the time, senior Republicans attacked the House conservatives, despite the fact that the latter were not alleging any wrongdoing on Abedin’s part – they were merel and sensibly questioning the propriety of the government’s granting a security clearance to someone on Abedin’s background. In light of new revelations in the Clinton email scandal, which place Abedin in the center of the mishandling of classified information through Mrs. Clinton’s homebrew server system, the concerns of the House conservatives seem prescient.

Read more

Exclusive: U.S. Allies Now Fighting CIA-Backed Rebels

48509361.cached
Daily Beast, By Nancy A. Youssef, Feb. 12, 2016:
Not long ago, U.S. jets and Shia militias worked together to battle ISIS. Today, those militias are trying to take down American proxies in Syria.

Iraqi militias who once fought ISIS with U.S. help are now working with Russian and Iranian forces to crush American-backed rebels in the strategic Syrian city of Aleppo, two defense officials have told The Daily Beast.

At least three Shia militias involved in successful battles against ISIS in Iraq—the Badr Brigade, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and the League of the Righteous—have acknowledged taking casualties in fighting in south and southeast Aleppo province. U.S. defense officials confirmed to The Daily Beast that they believe “at least one” unit of the Badr Brigade is fighting in southern Aleppo alongside other Iraqi militia groups. Those groups are backed by Russian airpower and Iranian troops—and all of whom are bolstering President Bashar al Assad’s Syrian Arab Army.

Reports on social media say the Iraqi militias in Syria are armed with U.S. tanks and small arms they procured on the Iraqi side of the border. Those reports could not be independently confirmed.

The presence of militias fighting on behalf of Assad—a dictator that the U.S. has pledged to depose—is yet another reminder of the tangled alliances that the United States must thread as it pursues seemingly contradictory policies in its battles against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. In Iraq, these Shia militias were battling on behalf of the U.S.-backed government. In Syria, they are fighting against an American-supported rebel coalition that includes forces armed by the CIA.

In other words: The forces the U.S. once counted on to take back Iraq’s cities are the same ones the Russians now are counting on to get Aleppo back. And those militias are fighting units of the American-backed Free Syrian Army—including the 16th Division, elements of Jaish al Nasr, and Sultan al Murad—according to Nicholas Heras, a research associate at the Center for a New American Security.

U.S. officials claim not to be alarmed. “On our list of problems, one Badr brigade in Syria is way down there,” one U.S. official explained.

But the role of the Shia militias continues to be controversial. The militias are backed and funded by Iran—Badr, in fact, was created as a branch of the Iranian military. But in Syria, their role is part of the increasingly effective one-two punch of the Russian/Iranian alliance that has given the Syrian government the upper hand in the battle for Aleppo.

U.S. officials agree that without those Iraqi militias, the Syrian Army would be too weak to hold territory on their own.

It is perhaps because of these dynamics that both Russia and the U.S agreed to a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria late Thursday, to begin in one week. Even if Aleppo fell, Assad forces’ hold on the city and the country would be tenuous, at best, and would depend on unending Russian/Iranian support, an unappealing proposition for two states with fragile economies. For the U.S., the deal offered hope for ending uncomfortable alliances that had militias that once served it interests fighting opposition forces it was no longer willing to back militarily.

In the last week, Russia has launched hundreds of punishing, largely indiscriminate strikes in Aleppo. That’s allowed forces loyal to Assad—including the Iraqi militias—to move in and reclaim parts of Aleppo, cutting off the main supply route to the city. According to the Red Cross, at least 50,000 refugees have sought to flee to Turkey since the Russian assault began.

“Without the Russian airstrikes the Shiite militias would not have been as successful,” said Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland who studies Shiite militias. At the same time, “It is clear that Iran is routing as many fighters as possible to Syria, particularly on the Aleppo front.”

To make matters worse for the U.S. effort in Syria, among the opposition groups now losing territory in Aleppo are groups once backed by the United States. Unfortunately, those groups are also intermingled with Jabhat al Nusra, al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and a member of the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The great irony of Aleppo is that U.S. strikes against the Islamic State have the perverse effect of benefiting al Qaeda.

It was Nusra forces who, in 2013 and 2014, were key in pushing ISIS out of Aleppo.

Today Nusra and its allies now are largely fighting back the Russian/Iranian offensive alone.

The fall of Aleppo, Syria’s biggest city, would be a major win for Assad supporters and potentially leave Syria with two major rival forces—ISIS and the Assad regime.

In Iraq, the Shiite militias, known as Popular Mobilization Forces, were key to important wins against the Islamic State in Amiri and Tikrit, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s hometown. With the help of U.S. airstrikes, the militias were able to claim those cities from ISIS and end the jihadist group’s land grab across Iraq.

Fighting in Syria is a more lucrative undertaking, however. During the battle for the Iraqi cities of Amerli and Tikrit, militia members earned roughly $720 a month, according to Iraqi government officials. In Syria, the militiamen earn as much as $1,500 a month, Smyth said. The pay increase is a powerful incentive to join the battle—as if the appeal to sectarian loyalty were not enough.

U.S. officials are quick to say that they have never directly coordinated with the militias—small wonder, given that the Badr Brigade, for one, targeted hundreds of American troops in Iraq with Iranian-provided explosively formed projectile bombs, one of that war’s deadliest weapons.

But U.S. officials also acknowledged that the pro-Iranian militias benefited from U.S. airstrikes in Amerli and Tikrit, something the militias themselves refused to acknowledge. Only “weak people like the Iraqi army” wanted U.S. help, Haider al Amiri, the head of the Badr Brigade, said of the battle for Tikrit. He publicly celebrated Iranian support.

Either way, the fall of Amerli and Tikrit last year paved the way for the coalition and Iraqi forces to reclaim the city of Ramadi, the biggest prize to be taken back from ISIS so far. That, in turn, allowed the militias to increase their influence over Iraqi security matters.

The U.S. has been notably silent on the role of its erstwhile Iraqi allies in the ongoing battle in Syria, though it no longer predicts that Russia will become bogged down in the conflict as the Russian airstrikes provide the cover needed for the Iranian-backed forces to advance.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Kurdish forces captured a military base in Aleppo, near the Turkish border.

with additional reporting by Michael Weiss

World Powers Agree to ‘Cessation of Hostilities’ as Assad Vows to ‘Retake All of Syria’

Abdalrhman Ismail/Reuters

Abdalrhman Ismail/Reuters

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Feb. 12, 2016:

The Washington Post’s report on the big announcement immediately cast doubt upon just how much “cessation” we can expect. Secretary of State John Kerry said the declaration was “unanimous,” but hedged by saying it was merely unanimous “words on paper,” and “What we need to see in the next few days are actions on the ground.”

Those actions on the ground will apparently still involve Russian bombs detonating, just not quite as many of them:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the projected date for ending at least some of his country’s airstrikes in Syria is a week from Friday, but he emphasized that “terrorist” groups would continue to be targeted, including the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria that is involved in the fight against President Bashar al-Assad. The group in some instances fights alongside rebel forces supported by the United States and its allies.

The determination of eligible targets and geographic areas is to be left up to a task force of nations, headed by Russia and the United States, that will adjudicate differences of opinion. It is expected but by no means guaranteed that signatories to the agreement will be able to persuade their proxies and allies on the ground, including Assad and the hundreds of opposition groups fighting against him, to honor the terms.

Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that the agreement is not perfect and will require the goodwill and determination of all involved.

Not much “goodwill” could be detected in the interview with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad posted by AFP shortly after Kerry’s announcement. He vowed that his armed forces would “retake all of Syria,” acting against “terrorist” forces “without any hesitation.”

Assad then complained that due to the involvement of outside parties – i.e. the diplomats currently bubbling about a cessation of hostilities – his “solution” to the Syrian civil war “will take a long time, and incur a heavy price.”

The Syrian dictator also rejected United Nations allegations of war crimes perpetrated by his military and allied forces, and gave Europe a veiled warning that more refugees, with more terrorist mixed in, would be coming their way, if Western nations did not withdraw their support from opposition groups and let Assad finish them off.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke of a “qualitative” change in U.S. policy, moving away from calls to ramp down Russian airstrikes to a process of active U.S.-Russian cooperation, which would mean the United States was helping Russia take out Assad’s opposition. Kerry, of course, acted like he had no idea what Lavrov was talking about.

The U.S. also seemed taken aback by Russian allegations that American planes were responsible for the recent bombing of two hospitals in Aleppo.

The best anyone seems to be realistically hoping for is reducing the bloodbath around the Syrian city of Aleppo, and making it safer for humanitarian aid to reach besieged civilians. The Washington Post speculates that if Assad’s patrons in Russia and Iran do consider a reduction of hostilities, or actual cease-fire, it will be because they have largely accomplished their objectives, making it possible for the Syrian military to recapture Aleppo.

With a little more bloodshed, Russia, Iran, and Syria can hope to break the back of Assad’s effective military opposition, bringing more amenable rebel factions to the table for a negotiated settlement that will fall well short of ejecting the Assad regime from power, and isolating the Islamic State as a final enemy, which the international coalition will destroy on Assad’s behalf.

While U.S. Secretary of State Kerry was talking about working toward a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war, Russia left no doubts about what it expects the ultimate resolution to look like.

“Just look at what happened in Afghanistan and many other countries,” said Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev. “The Americans and our Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war? It would be impossible to win such a war quickly, especially in the Arab world, where everybody is fighting against everybody. All sides must be compelled to sit at the negotiating table, instead of unleashing a new world war.”

“You have no one power that can act alone,” Medvedev added. “You have Assad and his troops on one side and some grouping, which is fighting against the government on the other side. It is all very complicated. It could last years or even decades. What’s the point of this?”

On Thursday, one U.N. diplomatic source told Reuters the Russians were “stringing Kerry along” with talk about cease-fires and humanitarian issues, while they finished the business of arranging a battlefield victory for Assad: “It’s clear to everyone now that Russia really doesn’t want a negotiated solution but for Assad to win.”

Another diplomatic source summed up the Syrian endgame by saying, “It’ll be easy to get a ceasefire soon, because the opposition will all be dead. That’s a very effective ceasefire.”

 

The Muslim Man’s Sexual “Rights” Over Non-Muslim Women

1153402-3x2-940x627

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 12, 2016:

In word and deed, in Islamic and non-Islamic nations, Muslim men appear to think that non-Muslim women—impure “infidels”—exist solely to gratify their sexual urges.

First, consider the beliefs and actions of those committed to waging jihad for the cause of Allah, such as the Islamic State:

In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old [non-Muslim] girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted. He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her. When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion. “I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to” Allah.

Yet such behavior is not limited to fanatical jihadis, who have “nothing whatsoever to do with Islam,” as most fools and liars will assure us; rather it permeates the totality of Islamic culture.

Consider recent events in Pakistan: three Christian girls walking home after a hard day’s work were accosted by four “rich and drunk” Muslims—hardly ISIS candidates—in a car. They “misbehaved,” yelled “suggestive and lewd comments,” and harassed the girls to get in their car for “a ride and some fun.” When the girls declined the “invitation,” adding that they were “devout Christians and did not practice sex outside of marriage,” the men became enraged and chased the girls, yelling, “How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the pleasure of Muslim men.”  They drove their car into the three girls, killing one and severely injuring the other two.

Or consider the words of human rights activists speaking about another Muslim man’s rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl: “Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

Once relegated to third world countries like Pakistan and ISIS-controlled areas, the subhuman treatment and sexual abuse of “infidel” women is becoming a common fixture in the West.

Thus recently in Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman at night, hurled “filthy” insults and taunted her for sex.  One told her that “German women are there for sex,” before reaching into her blouse and trousers and groping her.

These recent stories from Germany and Pakistan are identical—Muslim men harassing non-Muslim women on the assumption that it’s their Islamic right and privilege—except for one difference: the German “infidel” escaped with her life, whereas the Pakistani “infidel” was murdered for refusing to gratify the sexual desires of her Islamic accosters.  As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, this difference will quickly fade.

Already there are other, more subtle similarities between “third world” Pakistan and “first world” Germany.  In the report about the manslaughter of the three Christian girls in Pakistan, we find that “Other girls in the local area are now too scared to travel at night and are being accompanied by the men in their families.”  In Germany, “The latest reports from Dortmund [where the “German-women-are-there-for-sex” anecdote transpired] paint a terrifying picture of a city where it is now unsafe for women to go out at night for fear of being attacked and raped by refugees.”

Indeed, less than a month earlier, on New Year’s Eve, 1,000 Muslim migrants, also apparently thinking that non-Muslim women exist for one thing, went on a raping spree in Cologne and elsewhere, leaving hundreds of “infidel” women violated, beaten, and traumatized—the same way “infidel” women living in Muslim-majority nations often feel.

Of course, well before the migrant crisis, Europe had and ignored ample lessons concerning what happens when Muslim populations grow.   In Britain alone, where a large Muslim minority has long existed, countless British girls in various regions have been sexually abused and gang raped by Muslims who apparently deemed it their Islamic right.  Said one rape victim: “The men who did this to me have no remorse. They would tell me that what they were doing was OK in their culture.”   Days ago a judge told 12 Muslim men that they “took such terrible and heartless sexual advantage” of a 13-year-old British girl before sentencing them.

A Muslim imam in Britain confessed that Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites [meaning non-Muslims] with particular contempt.”

Another Muslim convicted of rape in a separate case told a British court that sharing non-Muslim girls for sex “was part of Somali culture” and “a religious requirement.”

And there it is: Whether seen by “pious” Muslims as a “religious requirement”—as cited by an ISIS rapist to his 12-year-old victim—or whether seen as part of Pakistani (Asian) and Somali (African) culture—in a word, Islamic culture—the subhuman treatment and sexual degradation of non-Muslim women and children by Muslims who deem it their “right” is apparently another “exoticism” the West must embrace if it wishes to keep worshipping at the altar of multiculturalism.

***

Also see:

Horowitz: Jihad in Columbus: Somali Muslim Attacks Restaurant Owned by Israeli Christian

Men talk outside the Columbus, Ohio, restaurant where police say a man attacked several people with a machete on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016. Authorities say the man fled the scene and was later fatally shot by police. (AP Photo/Kantele Franko)

Men talk outside the Columbus, Ohio, restaurant where police say a man attacked several people with a machete on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016. Authorities say the man fled the scene and was later fatally shot by police. (AP Photo/Kantele Franko)

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, February 12, 2016:

Here we go again.  As you slept comfortably in your bed last night there was another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  There is a total media blackout and no buzz on twitter, but a Somali man, Mohamed Barry, is a suspect in a machete attack on a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.  The  is owned by an Israeli Christian so it’s not a surprise that it would be a target for jihad.  Four people were hospitalized, one with critical injuries.  Patrick Poole of PJ Media has more details.

And guess what? The FBI is investigating it as a “lone wolf” attack:

CBS News has identified the suspect as Mohammad Barry, however neither 10TV nor Columbus Police have confirmed the suspect’s name.  CBS News also reports Barry has a Somali background and may have traveled to Dubai in 2012.  

Law enforcement tells them the incident appears to be the type of “lone wolf terrorist attacks they’re trying to stop.”

As always, the FBI has declined to release the man’s immigration history.  Senators Sessions and Cruz have already identified 113 Muslims involved in attempted terror plots on American soil and have demanded information on their immigration history.  The Obama administration has thus far refused to cooperate.

It’s important to note that while everyone is focusing solely on Syrian refugees, we’ve actually had more problems from Somali Muslim immigrants.  We’ve taken in over 130,000 refugees from Somalia since 1993 and Columbus likely has the second largest population of these refugees (behind Minneapolis).  Even to the extent Republicans want to discuss the problem with refugees, they engage in political correctness in limiting the problem to Syria, as if it’s a problem limited to “ISIS infiltrators,” not a problem with the Islamic supremacist ideology endemic of many Muslims from numerous other countries as well.

The other important detail here is that the suspect allegedly traveled to volatile countries over the past few years.  Obviously, we have to get the full details in this case, but there is no reason we should not be monitoring such travel more carefully and watching those returning from these countries under suspicious circumstances.  Yet, Congress refuses to deal with those who are already known to have travelled to foreign countries to fight with terrorist organizations.   Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are balking at Sen. Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorist Act, which strips citizenship from those convicted of fighting for foreign terror groups.

Over the past few years, dozens of Somali refugees have gone over to fight for foreign terror groups, yet Congress did nothing to stop Obama from bringing in another 15,000 refugees from east Africa this year.  Unfortunately, until we bring this under control, these attacks will be a regular occurrence.

How many more people will have to die before it is socially acceptable among the political elites to place the security of American citizens above their own feigned sanctimony?

Also see:

Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 12, 2016:

American and European leaders tell us that Islam is a “wonderful” “religion” which teaches peace and love among all peoples.  Officials often quote the Koran in order to demonstrate the truth of this narrative.  Yet, the question remains:  Where do MUSLIMS teach other MUSLIMS that Islam requires them to love all other people in the world, and “do unto others?”

The answer:  Nowhere on the planet except in Muslim homes where parents teach their children these principles, which are entirely contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam.  Sharia (Islamic Law) comes from the Koran (the direct word of Allah) and the example of the prophet Mohammad (Sunnah) – the most perfect man according to Islam.  Allah in the Koran said whatever was revealed to Mohammad chronologically last overrules what was revealed before it (Koran 16:101, 2:106).  The last chronological verses in the Koran to discuss jihad include Sura (chapter) 9 verse 5 which says, “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”

islam (3)

Verses in the Koran such as “Let there be no compulsion in religion” are overruled (abrogated) by verses like Koran 3:85 stating that all people who are not Muslim go to hell, and Koran 5:51 which states, “Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends…”  Muslims who do will go to hell.

In fact, the Koran says that non-Muslims are the “worst of creatures.”

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” (Koran 98:6)

Mohammad himself, in the most authoritative reports (hadith) in Islam, said, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
(Bukhari 385 / Muslim, Book of Faith, 29)

In fact, Mohammad called for all Jews to be killed when he said in the most authoritative hadith in Islam: “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926)

Authoritative Islamic hadith by the most revered hadith scholar (Bukhari) says the Muslim prophet Jesus will return at the end of days to kill all the Jews and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam.

The purpose of Islam, according to Islam, is to eliminate all places on the earth where sharia is not the law of the land (Dar al Harb/House of War), until the entire world is made the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) under sharia.  Then you have “peace.”  The vehicle to do this is called “jihad.”

So, Islam is the religion of peace, so long as you remember to translate English to English through the filter of sharia and how it defines “peace.”

Back to the question:  Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

It is not taught in Islamic elementary, junior high, or high schools anywhere on the planet.

It is not taught in the most prestigious and oldest Islamic schools of jurisprudence, such as Al Azhar in Egypt.

It is not taught in Islamic Centers/Mosques anywhere in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa, or North America.

It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Defense.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims inside American churches and synagogues.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, and elsewhere in our intelligence and law enforcement services.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims to Members of Congress, National Security staffs, state legislators, and many other elected and appointed officials in the United States.

It appears many people may be unaware it is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim anything that is untrue about Islam, but it is obligatory for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim when the goal is obligatory – like in Jihad.

First Islamic State Celebrates Anniversary

ayatollahalikhamen_2162837b

Frontpage, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Feb. 11, 2016:

The first Islamic State since World War II celebrates its anniversary this week. And it isn’t the one you might think.

ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is the late-comer to the world of Islamic-inspired murder and mayhem. The regime that invented the genre will celebrate its 37th anniversary on Feb. 11. It’s official name: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You can’t really call a regime a Republic when it has a Supreme Leader whose wishes trump every single elected official, institution, and law in the country.

So let’s call the Iranian regime by the title it has earned: the Islamic State of Iran.

Everything that you see ISIS doing in Iraq, Syria and now Libya, the Islamic State of Iran has been doing for 37 years to its own people.

Chopping off hands in application of the Sharia law punishment for thievery? The Islamic State of Iran began that practice at the outset of the Revolution in 1979. Same goes for gouging out eyes, ripping out tongues, and dismemberment using jeeps attached to the arms and legs of the condemned person.

Stoning women for allegations of adultery? Check. Just watch the Stoning of Soraya M if you would like to get a feel for the gristly details.

The Islamic State of Iran leaders and their apologists would have you believe that women in Iran are more “free” than in neighboring countries, such as Saudi Arabia. In Iran, after all, they go to co-ed universities, work, and drive cars.

What the Islamic State of Iran’s apologists would prefer you not see is that its Sharia-law constitution officially relegates women to second-class citizenship status, so they can be married off at the age of nine, sold into “temporary marriage” (sigheh) by clerical pimps, and need a married relative’s approval to leave the country.

If it was good enough for Mohammad and his wives, it’s good enough for Iranians living in their Islamic State.

How about terror? The Islamic State of Iran began its existence washed in the blood of terrorist atrocities, starting with the execution of 3,000 members of the Shah’s officer’s corps.

It set up “revolutionary courts” that hunted down enemies of the regime and murdered them in public. When that wasn’t enough, it rounded up Baha’is, Jews, and Christians, and sent troops to massacre Kurds, ethnic Arabs, and Balouchis.

The Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, told Congress on Tuesday that ISIS leaders “seek to strike the U.S. homeland.” (Like Obama, for some reason Clapper refers to them as ISIL, an abbreviation that uses the old Colonial term for Syria, the Levant.)

What slouches! The Islamic State of Iran began its very existence with an attack on America, by taking our embassy and diplomats in Tehran hostage on Nov. 4, 1979. It went on to blow up our embassy and U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983, and more recently, to kill U.S. soldiers using IEDs equipped with explosively-formed-penetrators (EFPs) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today, the Islamic State of Iran boasts that America as we know it “will cease to exist” because of its actions. I believe that is a pretty clear reference to a well-known plan in Iran to build an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) nuclear device, to take out our national power grid.

Terror in Europe? The Islamic State of Iran has carried out dozens of terrorist acts over the past 37 years in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and elsewhere. It has bombed trains, metro stations, and shopping centers, and sent out professional hit teams to gun down more than 200 dissidents living overseas.

Just like ISIS, early on the Islamic State of Iran decreed that its goal was a worldwide war of jihad, and set up jihadi groups in Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, and elsewhere. It even went to Argentina in 1992 to blow up the Israeli embassy, and struck there again in 1994 to hit the AMIA Jewish community center.

And its reign of torture and mayhem continue. Just last year – Year Three in the reign of the latest “pro-Western” “moderate” President, Hassan Rouhani – Iran once again became the execution capital of the world, according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed.

One private group estimated that Iran had executed 1084 people in 2015, the highest number in more than 25 years and the highest per capita execution rate in the world.

For every person put to death these days by the Islamic State of Iran, a dozen more get thrown into secret prisons, where they are brutally tortured, sexually abused, and often murdered. Those who live to tell their stories will bear the scars forever.

Like Stalin in his time, the Islamic State of Iran even extends its reign of terror to the children its own supporters, just to make sure they toe the line. Just look at this chronology of the 2009 post-election protests from the Foundation for Democracy of Iran.

This week, supporters of jailed Iranian cleric Seyed Hossein Kazemini Borujerdi wrote to three Republican members of Congress who are trying to visit Iran to monitor the upcoming sham “elections,” begging them to visit the jailed cleric and bring him medical supplies.

Borujerdi was arrested in 2006 along with dozens of family members and thousands of his supporters. While most of the others have since been released, he has been held without bond on the orders of a Special Court of the Clergy. “His crime: advocating the separating of religion and state and defending democracy and freedom,” his supporters wrote.

It’s time for Congress to pay as much attention to the murderers inside Iran who are killing and torturing their fellow citizens as it does to the genocidal aspirations of the Iranian regime. Why? Because murder starts at home.

Ronald Reagan understood this. Every time he visited with President Gorbachev, he brought a list of Soviet refusniks and other political prisoners that he handed to the Soviet leader.

While Secretary of State John Kerry boasts of having negotiated a “prisoner exchange” with the Islamic State of Iran that set four Americans free, has he ever raised his voice as Reagan did in all of his meetings with his Iranian counterpart?

True, the Islamic State of Iran will be watching. And they will target those who dare to stand up to them and to call them out for the murder and mayhem they spread at home and abroad.

But that is no reason to stand down. On the contrary, that is all the more reason to fight harder and to call the murderers by name.

Also see:

 

Lifting the Veil with I. Q. Rasooli

lifting-the-veil-1By  Dorial Conga, Feb. 4, 2016:

My SPECIAL HONORED GUEST on Reality Extraction was: Ibn Q Rassooli (author of Lifting the Veil)

You are told it is a “religion of peace”. You are told it is only the “extremists” that are violent and intolerant of all other religions. You are told it is merely a religion. I would invite you to learn from an individual who was born into Islam in an Islamic society; an Iraqi exile by the name of Ibn Q Rassooli who has studied the Quran and Islamic texts for over 30 years; and has also studied extensively in Europe starting early in his life.

I.Q. Rassooli is a world renowned authority on Islam, with a mother tongue of Arabic, he fully understands the nuances of the writings, spoken word and body language of Islam, and is dedicated to teaching the West about what is really being expressed.

Our Good Islam/Bad Islam Strategy

jg (1)Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 11, 2016:

Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.

But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives. Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims, “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.

Our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of a Bad Islam. Even its name is one of those names that must not be named. There is only Good Islam. Bad Islam doesn’t even exist.

This isn’t just domestic spin, which it is, but it’s also an attempt at constructing an Islamic narrative. Our leaders don’t care what we think. They just want us to keep quiet and not offend Muslims. They do care a great deal about what Muslims think. And so, in their own clumsy way, they try to talk like Muslims.

They are attempting to participate in an Islamic debate without the requisite theological credentials. They want to tell Muslims that they should be Good Muslims not Bad Muslims, but they’re too afraid to use those words, so instead they substitute Good Muslims and Not Muslims. All Muslims are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims are Not Muslims is their Takfiri version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Our counterterrorism strategy has been constructed to convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam. And any of us who criticize Good Islam or argue that the artificial distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam, between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, between Iran and Hezbollah, between Pakistan and the Taliban, is false are accused of provoking Good Islam to transform into Bad Islam.

Nothing so thoroughly proves that the difference between Bad Islam and Good Islam is a lie as the compulsive way that they warn that Good Muslims are capable of turning into Bad Muslims at any moment. Offend a Good Muslim, criticize his religion, fail to integrate him, accommodate his every whim and censor what he dislikes and he’ll join ISIS and then he’ll become a Bad Muslim.

After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.

Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.

But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.

What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.

Our Good Islam allies in Pakistan fight Bad Islam’s terror, when they aren’t hiding Osama bin Laden. Bad Islam in the Islamic State beheads people and takes slaves and Good Islam in Saudi Arabia does too. Qatar is our Good Islam ally helping us fight Bad Islam terrorists by arming and funding Good Islam terrorists who sometimes turn out to be Bad Islam terrorists so we can’t figure out if the Islamic terrorists the CIA is routing weapons to are Good Islam terrorists or Bad Islam terrorists.

The moderate Muslim Brotherhood wins democratic elections. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood then burns down churches. The moderate Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and then the extremist Palestinian Authority cheers the stabbing of a Jewish grandmother. The moderate Iranian government signs a nuclear deal and then the extremist Iranian government calls for “Death to America”.

Like the saintly Dr. Jekyll and the mean Mr. Hyde, Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin. When Dr. Jekyll wanted to act out his baser nature, he took a potion and turned into Mr. Hyde. But the nasty urges were always a part of him. When a moderate Muslim pulls a Keffiyah over his face and starts stabbing, bombing or beheading, he doesn’t become an extremist, he just expresses his dark side.

Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder. Bad Islam is not something ISIS invented on a website. It’s always been a part of Islam. We attempt to separate Good Islam and Bad Islam because we don’t like being beheaded. But Muslims don’t make that distinction.

Our counterterrorism strategy is based on empowering Good Islam, on building coalitions with Muslims to fight terrorism and enlisting their cooperation in the War on Terror. But we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.

Our moderate Afghan Muslim allies, when they’re aren’t raping young boys (one of their cultural peculiarities we are taught to ignore), sometimes unexpectedly open fire on our soldiers. The Muslim migrants who arrive here to “enrich” our societies sometimes start shooting and bombing. The head of Al Qaeda was hanging out near the West Point of Pakistan. The mastermind of 9/11 was saved by a member of the Qatari royal family. The call is coming from inside the house. Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll.

When we “empower” and “build coalitions” with Good Islam, we’re also empowering and building coalitions with Bad Islam. Just ask all the Muslim terrorists running around with our weapons.

Our leaders want Good Islam to shield us from Bad Islam. If Good Islam is out front, then Muslims won’t see a clash of civilizations or a religious war, but a war between Good Islam and Bad Islam. But the Muslim understanding of Good Islam and Bad Islam is very different from our own.

Sunnis see their Jihadis as Good Islam and Shiites as Bad Islam. Shiites look at it the other way around. The Muslim Brotherhood, that our elites were so enamored with, saw secular governments as Bad Islam. To win them over, we helped them overthrow more secular governments because our leaders had adopted an understanding of Good Islam in which giving Christians civil rights was Bad Islam.

To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.

There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.

There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.

Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.

The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America.

There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

Girls Carry out Suicide Bombing; Kill at Least 58 in Nigeria

The aftermath of a previous attack by Boko Haram. (Photo: © Reuters)

The aftermath of a previous attack by Boko Haram. (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, Feb. 11, 2016:

At least 58 people were killed and many others injured in a double suicide bombing attack on a refugee camp in Nigeria. The camp is in the northeastern town Dikwa, 53 miles outside the capital of Borno state. It was serving as a temporary home for people fleeing the insurgency of the jihadist group Boko Haram.

Reports vary from 58 killed to more than 70, with dozens more reported injured.

Two female suicide bombers entered the camp and detonated their devices in the middle of it. A third was reportedly arrested before she detonated her bomb, after changing her mind.

“The one they arrested alive, she confessed,” Ahmed Satomi, of the State Management Agency, told Al Jazeera. “She feel [sic] that her parents would come and that’s why she refused to detonate her own bomb.”

She reportedly recognized her parents and siblings in the camp and therefore decided not to blow herself up.

The attack was carried out on February 9 but information was slow to filter out due a breakdown in the telephone system. It was carried out in revenge for a Nigerian military operation against Boko Haram in the village of Boboshe, according to The New York Times.

Boko Haram is trying to establish a sharia state in northeastern Nigeria and pledged allegiance to the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last year.

Also see: